George Monbiot is Right/Wrong

Cardew

Originally Posted by Cardew


I have no idea of the percentage; but have stated that "I suspect a very small proportion* of the total number of
installations. The great majority being owners of the installation or Rent a Roof companies."

i.e social rented houses.

spgsc531 wrote: »

But clearly your (figure?)



was completely wrong.




.

A grudging concession that your figure of 36% might not be 'typical';) I told you that giving information isn't your strong point - you are better at insults.

So if you think my belief that a very low percentage of PV installations are on council rented properties is completely wrong, why not ask zeupater and Martyn1981 if they agree with you or not.

spgsc531

Cardew wrote: »

i.e social rented houses.




A grudging concession that your figure of 36% might not be 'typical'(1) I told you that giving information isn't your strong point(2) - you are better at insults.

So if you think my belief that a very low percentage of PV installations are on council rented properties is completely wrong, why not ask zeupater and Martyn1981 if they agree with you or not.

(1) I said

spgsc531 wrote: »

Oh dear cardew.

I don't see any reason not to assume that those numbers are typical of many if not all borough areas in the Country.

and

spgsc531 wrote: »

My numbers are as now, my borough may not be typical who knows.
.

(2) Certainly no facts from you.

Bear in mind

spgsc531 wrote: »

Update, after getting some more accurate information from my local borough council:

6200 social houses (50% flats, 50% houses)
2000 suitable properties for solar panels, although more are being identified with advances in technology.
562 to date have solar panels fitted.
Council manifesto committed to doing more, depending on funding issues.

That's 1 out of 11,000 councils.

Councils are committed to reducing CO2, I believe there is Government 'pressure' for them to do so.

EricMears

Cardew wrote: »

Hi,
There is a certain irony in you complaining about obfuscation and then launching into a semantic discussion on the definition of 'cabal'

How about this for a definition:

To complain of the existence of a 'cabal' seems pretty obfuscatory in itself. It seems only reasonable to comment on what that might mean and the complete lack of evidence for the theory.

My definitions for 'cabal' were taken from the OED and the reference included. There's absolutely no explanation of where the 'alternative definition' came from.

BTW, I've yet to receive an invitation to join that 'cabal'

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

Hi,

Not so, I asked you to read post #36 of mine.





You asked a question, now to divert the discussion you want to discuss something that is of no relevance to that question.

I suspect that is because you know I am correct in that it will a very small percentage of rented houses.

So why not discuss the question you asked?

We know that 76% are privately owned, so the rented properties are in the 24% that include the Rent A Roof privately owned houses.

Is that not some form of evidence?

So let us address your question.

While we are at it - what do you think of spcsg531's figures?

Hi Cardew

The post referenced in my post was your post #35, which being one integer increment lower than 36 is, at this stage, the subject at hand due to being the post which was answered, point-by-point in order to maintain context, therefore post 36, having not yet been the subject of reply is irrelevant, despite the contents having been already addressed ....

I find it quite frustrating that one who can be quite intelligent and provides a great deal of fact based detail on this forum has a need to rely on such an obvious form of obfuscation and attempted confusion based diversionary tactics ...

This thread was started in order to discuss the Monbiot article in detail as it is a source which has been raised on numerous occasions as being a definitive objective source, whereas it is simply a subjective article written by someone whom many consider as being a political activist ...

We now have three forum members providing information based on three different methods, using completely differing sources but yet seem to generally support each other in terms of percentages/ratios, which completely counter the subjective viewpoint which you raised but have 'no idea' whether it is correct or not because there has been no attempt to provide a link to or supply supporting evidence/data .... without providing supporting evidence for a point to debate I, for one, cannot consider whether your viewpoint forms a stronger position than my own, therefore I see no debate, just ideological argument for argument sake and must therefore naturally consider that the only position held which is based on objective analysis is likely correct ....

HTH
Z

Cardew

zeupater wrote: »

Hi Cardew



This thread was started in order to discuss the Monbiot article in detail

HTH
Z

Hi Z,

This discussion about rented houses was started in another thread that you suggested be moved here, and you posed the question about PV systems on rented accomodation.

Having asked the question, you seem determined not to discuss that aspect - but give your definitions of what Monboit is saying etc.

The wider issue is quite simple, as Monboit and others have been saying for a couple of years:

PV is fitted to approx 2% to 3% houses; so 2% to 3% benefit from FIT(probably less if you take into account RAR companies)

Therefore 97% to 98% of electricity customers contribute via increased electricity bills to the subsidies enjoyed by the 2% to 3%.

Those 97% to 98% customers will range from the very poor to the very wealthy.

It is not just you that are frustrated by these posts.

Do you think that the 36% figure for tenants has any validity?

I have given my reasoning to substantiate a very low percentage of PV on rented council properties.

The DECC link to which Zeupater and I referred shows that 76% of systems are owned by private householders. 24% are aggregator owned properties, and in that 24% are the installations fitted and owned by the Rent a Roof companies - who only fit to privately owned houses whose owners are prepared to sign a 25 year 'lease' on their properties.

One RAR company alone has installed over
18,000 PV systems.

Is that not a reasoned position?

What is your suggestedfigure - do you know? Or can something only be discussed if the percentages are known down to 3 decimal points

You haven't stated your position, but go off into some meaningless diatribe where the 'poor' are the house owners with RAR systems - and frankly have the gall to attribute that definition to Monboit.

considering that most who would have the financial ability to purchase the systems outright would likely be defined by Monbiot as 'The Rich', and therefore, following his logic, 'The Rich' would more likely purchase systems (or finance them) outright than have a RAR system installed, it would stand that any aggregated systems would be installed on properties occupied by the less well off - shall we say 'the Poor' for the sake of this discussion ...

Can you believe on reflection you wrote the above?

Most of the 'poor' don't have PV, are not house owners, and many(shock horror) live in Flats.

The obfuscation comes from you, with arguments based on supposition upon supposition. The poor house owners with RAR PV being a typical example.

Lastly, I don't need, or want, patronising remarks about being 'quite intelligent'.

spgsc531

Cardew wrote: »

Lastly, I don't need, or want, patronising remarks about being 'quite inteligent'.

Ignoring everything else, this really did make me chuckle. Well done cardew.

Cardew

spgsc531 wrote: »

Ignoring everything else, this really did make me chuckle. Well done cardew.

Thats better, you have reverted to type!

P.S. it's Cardew - remember?

spgsc531

Cardew wrote: »

Thats better, you have reverted to type!

P.S. it's Cardew - remember?

Don't worry, I screen-saved it before you modified it cardew.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Hi Z,

PV is fitted to approx 2% to 3% houses; so 2% to 3% benefit from FIT(probably less if you take into account RAR companies)

Therefore 97% to 98% of electricity customers contribute via increased electricity bills to the subsidies enjoyed by the 2% to 3%.

Hiya cardew, couple of things:

1. If it helps to speed up your posts, I'd just say 2%, it's probably close enough. Although, if you'd rather use a fair number, you should really consider the properties that could take part in the PV FIT subsidy, rather than those that have.

And if you want to be really fair (and honest?) you could refer to the number of properties that could take part in FITs, not just PV FITs.

2. Why do you keep ignoring the elephant in the room? Paying a subsidy to powerstations to generate cleaner electricity is entirely unavoidable, so it seems fair and reasonable.

Paying it from a levy based on consumption by those consuming the commodity, also seems fair and reasonable.

So why target all your vitriol on a new(ish) subsidy that goes mainly to households, rather than on the long standing subsidies that only go to large / giant companies.

Surely FITs is far, far fairer to households than other subsidies - unless of course you are totally against renewables and low/zero carbon generation!

It appears to me, that both you and GM have recognised that FITs is a move towards a fairer distribution of subsidy funding - so in a 'political spin doctor' style move, have tried to denigrate the benefits by creating a false poor v's rich argument. Ignoring the fact that 'the poor' (along with all leccy consumers) should (and always have) contribute(d) to energy generation.

Just to clarify that last paragraph, the effect on the poor hasn't changed (though some may now be benefiting from free PV systems). The only difference is that some people (poor and rich, and everyone in-between) now have a subsidised powerstation nearby. Whether that results in a feeling of pride or angst, is really down to the individual.

Mart.

PS Perhaps a solution to all these arguments, would be for you to explain your position on renewables (and or low/zero carbon generation) and offer some constructive comments on our future generation. If your solutions avoid the need for subsidies, then all the better. M.

spgsc531

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Hiya cardew, couple of things:

1. If it helps to speed up your posts, I'd just say 2%, it's probably close enough. Although, if you'd rather use a fair number, you should really consider the properties that could take part in the PV FIT subsidy, rather than those that have.

And if you want to be really fair (and honest?) you could refer to the number of properties that could take part in FITs, not just PV FITs.

2. Why do you keep ignoring the elephant in the room? Paying a subsidy to powerstations to generate cleaner electricity is entirely unavoidable, so it seems fair and reasonable.

Paying it from a levy based on consumption by those consuming the commodity, also seems fair and reasonable.

So why target all your vitriol on a new(ish) subsidy that goes mainly to households, rather than on the long standing subsidies that only go to large / giant companies.

Surely FITs is far, far fairer to households than other subsidies - unless of course you are totally against renewables and low/zero carbon generation!

It appears to me, that both you and GM have recognised that FITs is a move towards a fairer distribution of subsidy funding - so in a 'political spin doctor' style move, have tried to denigrate the benefits by creating a false poor v's rich argument. Ignoring the fact that 'the poor' (along with all leccy consumers) should (and always have) contribute(d) to energy generation.

Just to clarify that last paragraph, the effect on the poor hasn't changed (though some may now be benefiting from free PV systems). The only difference is that some people (poor and rich, and everyone in-between) now have a subsidised powerstation nearby. Whether that results in a feeling of pride or angst, is really down to the individual.

Mart.

PS Perhaps a solution to all these arguments, would be for you to explain your position on renewables (and or low/zero carbon generation) and offer some constructive comments on our future generation. If your solutions avoid the need for subsidies, then all the better. M.

Hi M

I don't know why you keep asking cardew for an

Cardew wrote: »

inteligent[sic]

response (sorry, it's just too funny to not..)

He is never going to answer your questions, perhaps

Cardew wrote: »

it is in keeping with your lack of understanding of the subject.

Or maybe he won't respond because you are Ungodly, Sinful or Wicked?

Cardew wrote: »

iniquitous.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/iniquitous

Adj.1.iniquitous - characterized by iniquity; wicked because it is believed to be a sin; "iniquitous deeds"; "he said it was sinful to wear lipstick"; "ungodly acts"
sinful, ungodly
wicked- morally bad in principle or practice